This entry was posted on Friday, February 4th, 2011 at 7:02 pm and is filed under Season Finders.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Those stats do not include the postseason, but none of those pitchers ever relieved in the postseason, either. Glavine's total starts are 717 if you count the postseason. His 682 regular-season starts ranks 12th in MLB history.

Thanks fellas! I appreciate it. You know what, though? It does surprise me a little that it wasn't someone from earlier in the twentieth century - someone who played when rotations were smaller and guys finished many of the games they started. On the other hand, "back in the day," as it were, teams were more apt to throw the starting pitcher out there off-schedule - for example, relieving in a game where they REALLY needed it. Now, that doesn't happen as much to starters. Thus, Glavine and his bizarre GS/G ratio.

@13

Schilling is just short - .597. I'd assume (without looking, of course) that has a lot to do with those AWFUL Phillies teams for which he played earlier in his career.

@11

Bob Gibson, Curt Schilling, Warren Spahn, John Smoltz, and WALTER JOHNSON don't/wouldn't make this list. That's why W-L is garbage. Well, not total garbage: it tells us something, but what it tells us is less important than other things.

I think you're confusing wins and losses on the team level and on the individual pitching level. Also, notice please that I didn't say "complete garbage" - in fact, I said "not total garbage." But I really, REALLY love it when people ignore what other people say, and decide that it says something else. It's incredibly respectful.

But as to your point, yes - that's one valid reason to consider wins and losses. However, sometimes that doesn't tell the whole story. A pitcher can post great "peripheral" numbers and not get a lot of wins or losses, just because his team is bad. Or, he could be Chris Capuano in 2005: 3.99 ERA, 1.384 WHIP, 18-12. He was not good that year, but won a lot of games, because of good run support. Ben Sheets had a 3.33 ERA, and 1.066 WHIP, but went 10-9. Chris Capuano was not better than Ben Sheets in 2005, though he won more games, and at a higher percentage.

@15
I think you're taking yourself too seriously. I think it has been acknowledged for some time that wins and losses are not the 'be all, end all' in the individual sense. For you to say: "Whelp, Walter Johnson isn't on this list... therefore we finally have the proof" is ignoring the fact that while he was playing it was acknowledged and implicitly understood that his lack of being on championship teams was not a proper gauge of his individual talent.

I assume next you'll say, "Holy cow, Bob Gibson had a 1.12 ERA/258 ERA+ in 1968 and he still lost 9 games. This proves that W-L doesn't mean anything" and then pretend or believe that this is an altogether new thought.

So, to sum up: Wins and Losses has always been considered flawed when trying to gauge a player's value. To pretend that this is a new thought is the height of arrogance.

I think we finally have the proof that Wins has always been considered the most important factor in determining a player's present and future value. This is further backed up by the fact that Frank Barnes and Tim Rice went on to Hall of Fame careers while no one remembers (or probably even has heard of) Bob Gibson or Greg Maddux.

This also shows that ERA is the most important tie-breaker and second most important statistic. Imagine the impact on baseball history had the Chicago Cubs ignored the fact that Tim Rice had the same wins as AND a better ERA than Greg Maddux and instead decided to call up Maddux? The horror.

This along with other examples I am planning on finding shows, beyond a doubt, that Wins is the most important followed by ERA.

I'm glad we agree that wins and losses are not the most important statistic.

Also, I don't think I have said anything arrogant, but if I have, I apologize.

I never claimed I had any new thoughts on the subject, as you acknowledge you do not. While I do not believe this means can still talk about it, something I said clearly upset you, and I'm sorry for that.

Schilling was one of those touted as underrated by wins and losses in the 90s. From 1988-2000, he was only 110-95 but with a whopping 123 ERA+. The Pythag winning percentage for that ERA+ is .602. He "should" have been 123-82. No one was surprised when his career took off in the 00s.

@8, DavidRF -- Spooky timing & wording! But kudos to you for including Dick McBride. I've recently started extending my Play Index searches to 1893 or even 1876 (instead of the default 1901) -- but you, sir, have taken it all the way back to the dawn of time.

I was not familiar with Dick McBride, but I see now that he was the Athletics' pitcher in 1872 & '74 -- as in, he started and completed all 47 games in '72 and 55 games in '74. In his spare time, he managed the club; at least he didn't have to give any thought to developing a bullpen.

@23
Careful when you use the phrase "dawn of time". McBride was the captain of the Athletic club for a few years before the founding of the NA. His playing days date back to the Civil War. Some stats are available from before 1871 but they are a bit sketchy. Who knows... maybe he pitched in relief *once* during that time and it knocks him off the list. I do see him playing some 2B in the 1860s.

If going back further doesn't change the list, then it just makes Glavine's mark look more impressive.

W-L at the extremes TEND to show excellent pitchers. Still it is a poor arbiter of individual performance, & reflects team success to a good degree even with the outliers. That over time many of the very best-& some who make this list by being good but playing on excellent teams-are represented on such a list, does not show W-L to rank pitchers well.

Even just here, it does a poor job of ranking guys amongst themselves, let alone who was omitted. For example Clearly Martinez, with easily the best ERA + of the modern era, would deserve to rank around #1, not #8, if quality per start was reflected here.

Note to dukeofflatbush: The Braves have a franchise WL % of exactly .500 since 1876 but they've only had three seasons where their record was excaxtly .500. Likewise the Tigers, who have a franchise record of .506 since 1901 but only finished at exactly .500 twice (1954 and 2010). If the pattern holds, the Tigers should do it again sometime between 2063 and 2066.